Bava Kamma 66

כיון דמשעבד ליה לניזק לאו כל כמיניה א"ל אינו מכור

since the ox is mortgaged to the plaintiff,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if payment were not forthcoming the plaintiff would be entitled to distrain on the ox to the extent of the amount of the half-damages. ');">¹</span>

והתניא מכרו מכור חוזר וגובהו וכי מאחר שחוזר וגובהו למה מכור לרידיא

the defendant has no right [to dispose of it]? — He replied: The sale is not valid. But has it not been taught: In the case of [the defendant] having disposed of the ox, the sale is valid? — The plaintiff will still be entitled to come forward and distrain on it [from the purchaser].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 181, n. 8. ');">²</span>

ש"מ לוה ומוכר מטלטלין ב"ד גובין לו מהם שאני התם דכמאן דעשאו אפותיקי דמי

But if he is entitled to come forward and distrain on it, to what purpose is the sale valid? — For the ploughing [the ox did with the purchaser].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who will thus not have to pay for the use of the animal, [or, who will be permitted to put the ox to such service, v. Wilna Gaon, Glosses.] ');">³</span>

והאמר רבא עשה עבדו אפותיקי ומכרו ב"ח גובה הימנו שורו אפותיקי ומכרו אין ב"ח גובה הימנו

Can we infer from this that in the case of a debtor having sold his chattels, a Court of law will distrain on them for a creditor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas according to established law this is usually the case only with immovable property, cf. supra p. 62 but also B.B. 44b. ');">⁴</span>

עבד מ"ט משום דאית ליה קלא האי נמי כיון דנגח קלא אית ליה דתורא נגחנא קרו ליה

— The case there [of the ox]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That did damage by goring while still in the state of Tam. ');">⁵</span>

תני רב תחליפא בר מערבא קמיה דרבי אבהו מכרו אין מכור הקדישו מוקדש

is altogether different, since the ox is regarded as if [the owner] had mortgaged it [for half-damages]. But did Raba not say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 47. Cf. also B.B. 44b. ');">⁶</span>

מכרו מאן אילימא מזיק מכרו אין מכור מני ר"ע היא דאמר הוחלט השור והקדישו מוקדש אתאן לרבי ישמעאל דאמר יושם השור בב"ד

that where a debtor has mortgaged his slave and then sold him [to a third person] the creditor is entitled to distrain on him, whereas where an ox has been mortgaged and then sold [to a third party] the creditor cannot distrain on it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then distrain on the ox in the case of goring when it had already been sold? ');">⁷</span>

אלא ניזק מכרו אינו מכור מני רבי ישמעאל הקדישו מוקדש אתאן לר"ע

— Is not the reason in the case of the slave that the transaction has been widely talked about?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. loc. cit. ');">⁸</span>

לעולם מזיק ודברי הכל מכרו אינו מכור אפילו לרבי ישמעאל דהא משעבדא ליה לניזק

So also in the case of this ox; since it gored it has been talked about, and the name 'The ox that gored' given it.

הקדישו מוקדש אפילו לר"ע משום דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו גזירה שמא יאמרו הקדש יוצא בלא פדיון:

R. Tahlifa the Western<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Palestinian. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ר שור תם שהזיק עד שלא עמד בדין מכרו מכור הקדישו מוקדש שחטו ונתנו במתנה מה שעשה עשוי משעמד בדין מכרו אינו מכור הקדישו אינו מוקדש שחטו ונתנו במתנה לא עשה ולא כלום

recited in the presence of R. Abbahu: 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is not valid, but where he consecrated it [to the altar], the consecration holds good.' Who sold it? Shall I say the defendant? [In that case the opening clause,] 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is not valid', would be in accordance with the view of R. Akiba that the ox becomes transferred [to the plaintiff], while [the concluding clause.] 'Where he consecrated it, the consecration holds good' could follow only the view of R. Ishmael who said that the ox has to be assessed by the Court. If [on the other hand, it has been disposed of by] the plaintiff, would not [the opening clause.] 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is not valid', be in accordance with the view of R. Ishmael, while [the concluding clause.,] 'Where he consecrated it, the consecration holds good' could follow only the view of R. Akiba? — We may still say that it was the defendant [who disposed of it], and yet [both rulings] will be in agreement with all. 'Where he sold the ox, the sale is valid' [may be explained] even in accordance with R. Ishmael, for the ox is mortgaged to the plaintiff. 'Where he consecrated it, the consecration holds good,' [may again be interpreted] even in accordance with R. Akiba, on account of [the reason given] by R. Abbahu; for R. Abbahu [elsewhere] stated:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 33a. ');">¹⁰</span>

קדמו בעלי חובות והגביהו בין חב עד שלא הזיק בין הזיק עד שלא חב לא עשו ולא כלום לפי שאין משתלם אלא מגופו

An extra precaution was taken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of one who consecrates property on which there is a lien of a kethubah or a debt. ');">¹¹</span>

מועד שהזיק בין שעמד בדין בין שלא עמד בדין מכרו מכור הקדישו מוקדש שחטו ונתנו במתנה מה שעשה עשוי קדמו בעלי חובות והגביהו בין חב עד שלא הזיק בין הזיק עד שלא חב מה שעשה עשוי לפי שאין משתלם אלא מן העלייה:

lest people should say that consecrated objects could lose their status even without any act of redemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is therefore a better policy to declare the consecration valid and prescribe a nominal sum for redemption. ');">¹²</span>

אמר מר מכרו מכור לרדיא

Our Rabbis taught: If an ox does damage while still <i>Tam</i>, then, as long as its case has not been brought up in Court, if it is sold the sale is valid; if it is consecrated, the consecration holds good; if slaughtered and given away as a gift, what has been done is legally effective. But after the case has come into Court,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since when the ox is legally transferred to the plaintiff. ');">¹³</span>

הקדישו מוקדש משום דרבי אבהו

if it is sold the sale is not valid; if consecrated, the consecration does not hold good; if slaughtered and given away as a gift, the acts have no legal effect; so also where [other] creditors stepped in first and distrained on the ox [while in the hands of the defendant], no matter whether the debt had been incurred before the goring took place or whether the goring had occurred before the debt was incurred, the distraint is not legally effective, since the compensation [for the damage]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which will be only half of the actual amount of the loss sustained. ');">¹⁴</span>

שחטו ונתנו במתנה מה שעשה עשוי בשלמא נתנו במתנה מה שעשה עשוי לרדיא אלא שחטו ליתי ולשתלם מבשריה

must be made out of the body of the ox [that did it].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 73. ');">¹⁵</span>

דתניא חי אין לי אלא חי שחטו מנין ת"ל ומכרו את השור מ"מ

But in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i> doing damage there is no difference whether the case had already been brought into Court or whether it had not yet come into Court; if it has been sold, the sale is valid; if consecrated, the consecration holds good; if slaughtered and given away as a gift, what has been done is legally effective, where [other] creditors have stepped in and distrained on the ox, no matter whether the debt had been contracted before the goring took place or whether the goring had taken place before the debt was incurred, the distraint is legally effective, since the compensation is paid out of the best of the general estate [of the defendant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosef. B.K. V. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב שיזבי לא נצרכא אלא לפחת שחיטה

The Master stated: 'If it is sold, the sale is valid'. [This can refer] to ploughing [done by the ox while with the vendee]. 'If consecrated, the consecration holds good'; on account of the reason given by R. Abbahu. 'If slaughtered and given away as a gift, what has been done is legally effective'. We can quite understand that where it has been given away as a gift the act should be legally effective, in respect of the ploughing [meanwhile done by the ox]. But in the case of it having been slaughtered, why should [the claimant] not come and obtain payment out of the flesh? Was it not taught: '[The] live [ox]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI. 35. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע זאת אומרת המזיק שעבודו של חבירו פטור

this states the rule for when it was alive; whence do we know that the same holds good even after it has been slaughtered? Because it says further: And they shall sell the ox,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI. 35. ');">¹⁷</span>

פשיטא מהו דתימא התם הוא דא"ל לא חסרתיך ולא מידי דא"ל זיקא בעלמא הוא דשקלי מינך אבל בעלמא ליחייב קמ"ל

i.e., in all circumstances'? — R. Shizbe therefore said: What is referred to must be the diminution in value occasioned by its having been slaughtered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which the defendant is thus not made responsible. ');">¹⁸</span>

הא נמי רבה אמרה דאמר רבה השורף שטרותיו של חבירו פטור

R. Huna the son of Joshua thereupon said: This proves that if a man impairs securities mortgaged to his creditor, he incurs no liability. Is this not obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such an inference could be made; why then the special statement made by R. Huna? ');">¹⁹</span>

מהו דתימא התם הוא דא"ל ניירא בעלמא קלאי מינך אבל היכא דחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות ליחייב קמ"ל דהא הכא כמאן דחפר בה בורות שיחין ומערות דמי וקאמר מה שעשה עשוי

— It might perhaps have been suggested that it was only there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the ox that had been slaughtered. ');">²⁰</span>

קדמו בעלי חובות והגביהו בין חב עד שלא הזיק בין הזיק עד שלא חב לא עשה ולא כלום לפי שאין משלם אלא מגופו

where the defendant could argue, 'I have not deprived you of anything at all [of the quantity]', and could even say, 'it is only the mere breath [of life] that I have taken away from your security' [that there should be exemption], whereas in the case of impairing securities in general there should be liability; we are therefore told [that this is not the case]. But has not this been pointed out by Rabbah? For has not Rabbah stated: 'If a man destroys by fire the documents of a neighbour, he incurs no liability'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 570. ');">²¹</span>

בשלמא הזיק עד שלא חב ניזקין קדמו אבל חב עד שלא הזיק ב"ח קדים

— It might perhaps have been suggested that it was only there where the defendant could contend 'It was only a mere piece of paper of yours that has actually been burnt' [that there should be exemption], whereas in the case [of spoiling a field held as security] by digging there pits, ditches and caves there should be liability; we are therefore told that [this is not so, for] in the case here the damage resembles that occasioned by digging pits, ditches and caves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the damage is visible. ');">²²</span> and yet it is laid down that 'what has been done is legally effective'. 'Where [other] creditors stepped in first and distrained on the ox [in the hands of the defendant] no matter whether the debt had been incurred before the goring took place or whether the goring had taken place before the debt was incurred, the distraint is not legally effective, since the compensation must be made out of the body of the ox [that did the damage].' We understand this where the goring has taken place before the debt was incurred, in which case the plaintiff for damages has priority. But [why should it be so] where the debt has been contracted before the goring took place, [seeing that in that case] the creditor for the debt has priority?